Remember when Donald Trump, our sitting president, called Omarosa "that dog" after news broke that she'd recorded with him and others during her time at the White House? It was both racist and sexist — and definitely was not said from a place of love.
But if you ask Washington Times' editor Charlie Hurt, Trump's "dog" comment was totally fine. During a segment on Fox News on Tuesday, Hurt suggested that Trump meant "dog" as a compliment.
Fox News commentator Marie Harf first brought up the comment as an example of "offensive things" Trump's said on Twitter.
"Young voters are fired up like we haven't seen them over guns, over immigration — and look, Donald Trump says incredibly offensive things on Twitter," she said. "Suddenly, we want standards for everybody else but not the president, who calls women dogs and says terrible things about people?"
That's when Hurt jumped into suggest that calling someone "dog" was a compliment. Perhaps he was thinking of "my dawg," the colloquial term of endearment...?
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
Thankfully, an anchor shut that shit down.
"No, no, that's not a compliment Charlie," said an anchor — presumably Eric Shawn, per Daily Beast reports. But enough was said to rile people up:
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
Considering the context of Trump's original tweet, it obviously wasn't a compliment. Whether or not Hurt knows the definition of the word "compliment" is the question we should all be asking.
[H/T: The Daily Beast]
Topics Politics
